pikchurn

Maybe you want a hypergraph?

http://www.hypergraphdb.org/

Wtf man, what's your problem?

Meaning that they didn't launch at the right time to arrive at Mars, due to where Mars is in its orbit currently. It'll pass through the imaginary circle around the sun which is Mars' orbit, it's just that Mars will at a different part of the orbit at that time.

But actually, it seems they decided to just empty the tanks and get as much delta-v as possible, and it'll go all the way into the asteroid belt as a result.

No, it's a Martian transfer orbit, albeit without Mars at the other end.

Actually, no, once the 2nd stage cuts off the trajectory is mostly fixed and we know what orbit it is in. There are, I believe, two more small burns that will be done to adjust the trajectory, but these are more of an adjustment to what kind of Martian transfer orbit it is in. It already has the hyperbolic velocity to leave Earth's orbit, and enter solar orbit with an apogee at the same distance as Mars.

In 6.5 hours SpaceX will have finished everything they wanted to test with this flight I believe, including a number of post-launch checks of various systems and sensors on the payload, and those re-ignition tests of the 2nd stage.

What boat?

No. Watch SpaceX's twitter feed. It might be a while though.

That's the 2nd stage. It's still attached to the payload I believe, so that they can test mid-course corrections to the transfer orbit.

What nearby ships?

I don't find that surprising. The communication link back is presumably by satellite since it is in the middle of the ocean, and probably a directional antenna because of the high bandwidth. You have any good suggestions for having a reliable connection via directional antenna on a flimsy barge that a rocket is landing on in this middle of the choppy north Atlantic?

They were not the same video feed.

As I said, I just want the .deb file on the iso.

I'm not saying by default. I'm saying have it on the CD.

I use containers as lightweight VMs in many places. Generally I see this as a way to get a minimal install that other tools can then configure appropriately, with up to date packages fetched from upstream mirrors directly, instead of installed from CD and then upgraded.

I currently use packer.io to script the creation of a bunch of server images, and for ubuntu I've missed the "minimal install CD" that other distros have. Instead packer has to download a 800MB CD image, in order to install only a few hundred megabytes of uncompressed packages in a bare-bones install, which is then provisioned using some orchestration tool that at its heart uses ssh to login to the virtual machine.

Not having SSH means you need to add in some sort of serial-attach step to manually install sshd, or hook into the install scripts to download sshd as part of the install or whatever. Either way that's additional custom work that is probably common to a great many use cases.

Posting here rather than the blog because I don't have a google account:

What about adding sshd to the minimal install? If the purpose of this is minimal installs of containers and cloud servers and such, that seems like quite an omission.

I already told you the added assumption: a theory of wave-form collapse as physical phenomena. Only the Copenhagen interpretation has this. I'm not going to spend my time putting that into formal logic notation to satisfy random person on the internet. Do it yourself.

That's missing the point. Copenhagen is not mathematically wrong. Alternatives like many-worlds interpretation and pilot wave theory have the same (MWI) or isomorphic (pilot wave) equations. Copenhagen is epistemologically wrong in that it requires strictly more assumptions than is strictly necessary, specifically an theory of wave function collapse. It is "wrong" by Ockham's razor.

> The idea of having an "operating system" made up of components dispersed across the globe seems like a fantasy that is too good to be true.

Read up on Amoeba and Sprite in the 80's.

You ignored the "philosophy of science" part. Philosophy of science is how we decide which of two theories is "correct" when they offer the same experimental predictions. See also my reply to a sibling comment.

That's many-worlds interpretation that introduces decoherence to avoid the problems of Copenhagen.

Rhetorical question: why are epicycles wrong?

An infinite sequence of epicycles could be used to accurate model any orbital path, in a similar sense to how a Taylor series can represent any function as an infinite series of polynomials. It's not wrong in the mathematical sense, but rather the philosophical: a needlessly complex theory that is hard to work with and which provides no advantages or insight over the simpler theory is declared wrong, even if it provides, or could provide the same predictions.

So it is with quantum mechanics. The standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM requires notions of observers and mysterious faster-than-light transfer of state which is really hard to reconcile with the modern scientific view of the world. The mystery surrounding it (in the religious sense) has let to disproportionally many cranks who misinterpret the theory into statements about "quantum consciousness" or other new-age nonsensical tie-ins.

However these issues arise to a lesser extent with the many-worlds interpretation, and not at all with pilot wave theory. The former is nothing more than reinterpretation of the same equations, and the latter is a different formulation that is nevertheless mathematically identical as far as it has been worked out. If we had started with many-worlds, or better yet pilot-wave, then we wouldn't have a century of people growing up with 2nd-hand tales about how the world is governed by a mystical and incomprehensible theory of matter that even physicists don't understand. Which is utter bullocks.

What do you mean by that? Pilot-wave and many-worlds have EXACTLY the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. It's the same theory, in the sense that the same mathematical equations, expressed differently.

The Conpenhagen interpretation is flat out wrong by any reasonable philosophy of science. You can choose many-worlds interpretation, or pilot-wave theory and either one would give you a consistent, simpler explanation of what is going on then some mumbo-jumbo hocus pocus about consciousness and observation of cats in boxes, with fewer assumptions to boot, and no paradoxical conclusions that require religious like mysteries to explain.

Yet for inane reasons the Conpenhagen interpretation is still ALL that is taught to the next generation of physicists, who in turn teach it to their students. Only the weird physics students (like me) who go "wtf?" in class and refuse to believe the teacher go out and learn pilot-wave theory (my preference) or many-worlds interpretation to re-inject some sanity into the world.

We previously allowed them access to private records with a system of due process involving judges granting warrants on a case by case basis. Instead of following the intent of the law, or even the letter of the law, they recorded everything using either robo-signed warrants or retroactive warrants when they actually needed to make legal use of the information. It was a framework of reasonable judicial oversight and what we got was totalitarian surveillance.

The problem is that law enforcement, spooks, and the judicial system are all on the same side and see themselves that way. You can want a system of due process, but you won't get it.

Fool me once...

> I wonder if Pad Thai, bulgogi, or stretchy Turkish ice-cream will be considered everyday foods in another 50 years.

I'll have to try stretchy Turkish ice-cream sometime (where do you find that?) but Pad Thai and bulgogi are already everyday foods you can find on every corner of every strip mall in the part of America where I live.

Your source was someone asserting, without justification, that it is illegal. That's not a legal argument. Even without considering that the source is very, very biased, it's not helpful.

That article is a long run-on that doesn't actually provide an argument other than "silly computer scientists are in la la land" name-calling.

To the extent you trust tether. But if trust is centralized, why use a block chain? If tether operated a Chaumian cash server instead of some block chain thing it would be universally better for all involved with no loss of trust from what actually existed before.

Treadmill desk?

I would expect you to get ranted at because of its alignment with the Confederacy in the Civil War, which otherwise pretty much defines "the South" as a geographic term in common usage. South = Confederate states, North = Union states, West = a few physically separate states and various non-state territories at the time. At least with the North and the South, less so with the West, these groupings lasted long after the end of the civil war due to the effects of reconstruction and cultural identity related to the outcome of the war.